Married on prep?

[bobinbottom]

Your argument is pretty weak. There are but a handful of documented cases of people on PrEP getting pozzed.

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, bobinbottom said:

Your argument is pretty weak. There are but a handful of documented cases of people on PrEP getting pozzed.

For people who take the pill *every day*, *without fail*, that is correct.

There are plenty of people who miss doses of medication, even knowing they're extremely important. Life has a way of getting in the way. You build a schedule around taking it at lunch with your meal, for instance, and you forget it at home one day when you're eating out. By the time you're home again, you've forgotten because it's not in your routine to take it in the evening, so you miss a dose.

Or you take it each morning at work with a quick breakfast or your first cup of coffee, but ooops, it's Monday morning, you were running late, and you forgot your pills at home. Tuesday mornings, you're used to the pills being at work for the week, and you forget to grab them because it's not your Tuesday routine. Ooops, you've missed two doses.

Or you're used to taking it each morning while you get your desk sorted for the day, but this morning, you arrived to an "all hands on deck" meeting that you have to go straight into. You're not comfortable taking medication in front of your coworkers, so you decide you'll take it later, during lunch break. Only lunch ends up being sandwiches brought into the conference room and everyone works through lunch. It's so crazy you don't think about it until you're on your way home at seven o'clock and realize the pills are in your desk at work.

That's why regular testing is important. Because people screw up. They make mistakes. Life gets in the way. 

[bobinbottom]

Again, there are but a handful of documented cases of people getting HIV on PrEP. This includes people with busy mornings who may miss an occasional dose. Let me ask you. If they are doing this to ensure you don't catch HIV while on PrEP then why do they test for every other STDs as well? Sorry, this is just an example of the nanny state trying to control people. It's really sad because instead of the government adding intrusive testing requirements, it should be breaking down barriers to people being on PrEP.

 

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, bobinbottom said:

Again, there are but a handful of documented cases of people getting HIV on PrEP. This includes people with busy mornings who may miss an occasional dose. Let me ask you. If they are doing this to ensure you don't catch HIV while on PrEP then why do they test for every other STDs as well? Sorry, this is just an example of the nanny state trying to control people. It's really sad because instead of the government adding intrusive testing requirements, it should be breaking down barriers to people being on PrEP.

 

Oh, I get it now. You'd rather have untreated syphilis or gonorrhea than face the indignity of being told you have a sexually transmittable disease, or worse yet, have to disclose other partners for contact tracing. Message received.

[bobinbottom]

You just don't get it. Peace.

[cyberdolphnow]

On 11/6/2020 at 8:22 AM, Mykell said:

I am married and I am on PREP. But my wife knows fully of my bi side and that I play on the side. I say come clean with your desires and either she will accept them or not. Cheating will just catch up with you at some point as others have pointed out.

 

I've just had a PREP discussion with my female wife. She already knew that I barebacked with men for years prior to covid  shutdowns. She's allowed me my friends with benefits as I allow her for hetro men to fuck her but she's really not a player in that arena now. 

[We don't have any intercourse sex anymore other than me regularly eating her ass out (higher risk) and occasionally (like 1-2 times a year)  eating her pussy when I'm  feeling particularly amorous  for her and she's shaved bare. She doesn't and has never liked male cum.]

HISTORY-At one recent past annual physical, with her sitting in on my results, i asked if I should get on PREP, both she and my general practioner doctor kind of laughed it off.

But recently in private i explained that I want to be on or get on PREP if possible once the covid situation sorts out so I can bareback without worrying about HIV. I have a medical regular  medication regime for some heart related medicine that I have to take so taking PREP regularly wouldn't be an issue. She was very amenable to me exploring the opportunity to get on PREP if I can.  

Its definitely progress with the subject. 

 

[Guest Descartes70817]

Married man on HIV meds here. The worst things got for me was being in hospital with AIDS-related double pneumonia.

How things work out depends entirely on how your wife reacts. I told mine I fucked men as soon as things got serious between us and she accepted it on condition that I only play in my own time, I keep what I do to myself and that her family never finds out.

[Guest hungandmean]

On 11/9/2020 at 9:24 AM, bobinbottom said:

Again, there are but a handful of documented cases of people getting HIV on PrEP. This includes people with busy mornings who may miss an occasional dose. Let me ask you. If they are doing this to ensure you don't catch HIV while on PrEP then why do they test for every other STDs as well? Sorry, this is just an example of the nanny state trying to control people. It's really sad because instead of the government adding intrusive testing requirements, it should be breaking down barriers to people being on PrEP.

 

So the thing about PReP is that it's most effective when you are healthy. If you had a compromised immune system from chemo, or hep c, or something - then prep isn't going to be *as* effective. Especially if you were sleeping with someone who had a very high viral load. Any infection you, or your partner has, that could compromise your immune system or cause open sores, etc, that may increase the risk of HIV transmission are things that a doctor would want to know about.

I cannot fathom a reason, that isn't shady, for why you wouldn't want to know you have an STI. The thought that if you don't get tested you have no obligation to disclose a potential infection risk is such a shitty way to behave when being sexually active. It's one thing to get tested regularly and simply not know you have an STI - that's a risk lots of people take... but to go around fucking recklessly and never getting tested is just a shitty thing for anyone to do. 

 

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, hungandmean said:

So the thing about PReP is that it's most effective when you are healthy. If you had a compromised immune system from chemo, or hep c, or something - then prep isn't going to be *as* effective. Especially if you were sleeping with someone who had a very high viral load. Any infection you, or your partner has, that could compromise your immune system or cause open sores, etc, that may increase the risk of HIV transmission are things that a doctor would want to know about.

I cannot fathom a reason, that isn't shady, for why you wouldn't want to know you have an STI. The thought that if you don't get tested you have no obligation to disclose a potential infection risk is such a shitty way to behave when being sexually active. It's one thing to get tested regularly and simply not know you have an STI - that's a risk lots of people take... but to go around fucking recklessly and never getting tested is just a shitty thing for anyone to do. 

 

Precisely. There's an underlying attitude I sense here, of "How dare someone actually be concerned about an increase in STIs as a public health concern when I don't want any responsibility for acknowledging to other people that I have <fill in the blank>." Funny how so many "out and proud" gay people who are the first to trumpet how proud they are of how slutty they can be, suddenly don't want anyone knowing they're facing potential consequences of that slutty behavior, like having contracted an STI.

[Guest rookie6969]

On 11/6/2020 at 5:57 AM, bobinbottom said:

I understand PrEP is not 100%, however it is extremely effective and much better than nothing. The point is (like pretty much any medication) the decision to use it should be up to the patient and not the provider. We are all adults and we can all make informed decisions. I also don't buy the its to prevent the spread of resistant HIV. You can go an entire three months spreading resistant HIV even if you are tested. Honestly, if we were truly concerned about slowing the spread of HIV and protecting people then PrEP would be made widely available without any strings attached other than you test prior to beginning treatment. Anything else is merely another example of the nanny state controlling peoples lives.

 

what does any of this have to do with a nanny state?  There is a protocol for taking prep.  The govt doesn't have anything to do with the protocol.  Insurance companies, hospitals, and drug companies do.  Lots of medications have protocols, especially strong drugs with possible complications.  There are many reasons for the PreP protocol as many in this thread have stated.  It keeps you safe from side effects.  It keeps you safe from developing a resistant form of hiv.  It keeps the costs of health care down.  It keeps hospitals, doctors, drug companies safe from being sued when people misuse the medication.  During covid many HMO's and health care providers (including my own) waived the 3 month testing protocol, because of the risk of catching covid while at a hospital getting tests was higher than the risks of complications from PreP.  The govt. had nothing to do with it.  People's irrational fear of the govt. tracking their std tests has nothing to do with HIV transmission rates.  It has to do with the cost, accessibility, and education for PreP and testing.  Universal health care allow for more to be on PreP and even lower transmission rates.

[bobinbottom]

On 11/19/2020 at 3:23 AM, rookie6969 said:

what does any of this have to do with a nanny state?  There is a protocol for taking prep.  The govt doesn't have anything to do with the protocol.  Insurance companies, hospitals, and drug companies do.  Lots of medications have protocols, especially strong drugs with possible complications.  There are many reasons for the PreP protocol as many in this thread have stated.  It keeps you safe from side effects.  It keeps you safe from developing a resistant form of hiv.  It keeps the costs of health care down.  It keeps hospitals, doctors, drug companies safe from being sued when people misuse the medication.  During covid many HMO's and health care providers (including my own) waived the 3 month testing protocol, because of the risk of catching covid while at a hospital getting tests was higher than the risks of complications from PreP.  The govt. had nothing to do with it.  People's irrational fear of the govt. tracking their std tests has nothing to do with HIV transmission rates.  It has to do with the cost, accessibility, and education for PreP and testing.  Universal health care allow for more to be on PreP and even lower transmission rates.

The decision to see a doctor should be up to the patient, not insurance companies, not doctors and certainly not the FDA.  Would remind you that it is the FDA, an agency of the Federal government that codifies protocols with input from the drug company. So yeah, nanny state. My body, my decision. Everyone going to the doctor every three months to be tested in no way keeps health care costs down. The tests and the visit is not without cost. Sure, the test can be waived at the discretion of the hospital, however it is with the consent of the government that they do so. To others here who have commented about how not wanting to go every three months is shady because you don't want to know if you have an STD I say this. Did you get tested every three months if you were asymptomatic when you weren't using PrEP? If you weren't then according to your logic that is being shady too. The fact is to be coerced in to going to a doctor every three months to be tested borders on criminal since it creates a barrier to people receiving a potentially life saving drug.

[BootmanLA]

10 hours ago, bobinbottom said:

The fact is to be coerced in to going to a doctor every three months to be tested borders on criminal since it creates a barrier to people receiving a potentially life saving drug.

Regardless of the rest of your screed, this is just stupid. Things are either criminal or they are not, because making something criminal requires specificity.

As for "creates a barrier to people receiving a lifesaving drug": LIFE is a barrier to receiving life saving drugs. Having to take a car (or bus, or walk) to the pharmacy is a "barrier". Having to pay for medication, if you don't have 100% drug insurance coverage in some form, is a "barrier". Heck, having to have insurance to be able to get the drug is a "barrier". Requiring a doctor's prescription is a "barrier".

The question is whether it's a reasonable barrier. The FDA, doctors, hospitals, other health organizations, and apparently most of this board's respondents think it is reasonable. On the other side, there's you. Somewhere around here I have the contact info for a tiny violin player to share.

[BBButtSlut]

That’s fine if it’s your body, your decision. You have an option and that’s deciding not to take it. Use condoms, have non-penetrative sex, abstain. You don’t have to have bareback sex it’s not like it’s some protected right. God and if Pence ever became president he’d be happy to do away with funding a way for faggots to continue sodomizing each other altogether. (And being sodomized is my favorite hobby!)

[bobinbottom]

On 11/20/2020 at 8:04 PM, BootmanLA said:

Regardless of the rest of your screed, this is just stupid. Things are either criminal or they are not, because making something criminal requires specificity.

As for "creates a barrier to people receiving a lifesaving drug": LIFE is a barrier to receiving life saving drugs. Having to take a car (or bus, or walk) to the pharmacy is a "barrier". Having to pay for medication, if you don't have 100% drug insurance coverage in some form, is a "barrier". Heck, having to have insurance to be able to get the drug is a "barrier". Requiring a doctor's prescription is a "barrier".

The question is whether it's a reasonable barrier. The FDA, doctors, hospitals, other health organizations, and apparently most of this board's respondents think it is reasonable. On the other side, there's you. Somewhere around here I have the contact info for a tiny violin player to share.

What makes you think I'm all that upset about it. I just stated a fact. I for one choose to bareback without PrEP due to the conditions the government puts on it. I'm not losing sleep over it.